Proudly the Opposite of What Passes for Progressive

Monthly Archives: January 2016

First, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has declared that being a vegan is a human right. We’re not sure why that needed to be clarified, but thank God, it has now. The corollary is of course that it is a human right not be assaulted by vegan “emissions” resulting from eating all those lentils and high fibre foods. Sorry, making jokes about vegans is offensive, we don’t want to be violating someone’s human rights.

Then of course there’s the story where a Fergus, Ontario restaurant is slammed for advertising for a waitress (sexist) without tattoos or piercings (discriminatory). A dumb ass high school student is quoted:

“You shouldn’t discriminate against something that people choose,” added a high school student.

But that’s exactly what you should be allowed to discriminate against… People have no control over their colour, race, gender, disability, even religion (to a degree). But choosing to wear eyebrow rings is a choice and when you make a choice you carry the responsibility to accept the consequences of that choice. Unfortunately people want to live life without any consequences for the choices they make. It’s a hallmark of immaturity, because the only people we should let off the hook for bad decisions is little kids because they don’t know any better. But adults?

So when you choose to get visible tattoos or piercings that may not be everyone’s cup of tea, surely you understand that (and it may in fact be part of why you got those things in the first place).

What if I “choose” to come in to a job interview drunk and unshaven… wait! You didn’t give me the job?!? I’m suing for a human rights violation! Is that a bit too far now? Where is the line?

So there has been talk lately of Kevin O’Leary possibly running for the federal Conservative leadership.

First he offers Rachel Notley a cool million dollars to step down as Premier of Alberta, then he muses to CBC that he’d consider a run at the leadership. In a recent poll of Conservatives, he comes out tied with Peter McKay at 25% each in terms of support. Supposedly the whole Trump phenomenon, the appeal of a plain spoken businessman and what such a person could offer politics has crossed the border.

It’s a stupid idea and should go away.

First, Kevin O’Leary is bald as f*ck. Yes, we put this first. People do not like bald males unless they’re studly Hollywood actors (see Dwayne Johnson, Patrick Stewart et al), athletes (see George St. Pierre) or babies. Bald men are villains. A disproportionate number of referees in sports tend to be bald, ever notice that? They didn’t draw Mr. Burns in the Simpsons with a full head of hair. There are numerous studies out there that bald men generally have an uphill battle against perceptions of vigour, sexual attractiveness and trustworthiness. So, do we want O’Leary up against Trudeau in a televised debate?

Second, he’s an entertainer. When you watch him on Dragon’s Den or Shark Tank, he says a lot of provocative things that are meant to draw a reaction. Politicians aren’t supposed to draw reactions, they’re supposed to deal with reactions. Once you cross that threshold to where you’re saying shit just to get people riled up, you’ve made it really difficult to come back to the real world where we generally prefer calm, reasonable leadership.

Third, he’s a caricature of a greedy capitalist. Nothing pisses us off more than portrayals of conservatives as being obsessed about money. We should be obsessed about economic liberty and the triumph of free markets over government control and over-regulation. Increase economic liberty and wealth is created – for everyone. Capitalism is not synonymous with free markets and competition. Just the opposite. What would Kevin O’Leary (or Donald Trump for that matter) do if they were offered a business opportunity in a sector that had limited or no competition due to government regulation? They’d jump on it. Capitalists are not necessarily champions of the free market, they’re champions of money. And if that’s your only calling card, you expose yourself to attack from the left as being uncaring for those who are disadvantaged in our society, and that is not true about conservatives.

Fourth, and last – he’s worked for the CBC. What self-respecting “conservative” takes a government paycheque from the worst example of a leftist-biased organization when there are plenty of private sector avenues for him?

Share this:

Like this:

Let’s get this out of the way; Donald Trump is not a conservative. He’s a liberal.

He’s a protectionist, who is opposed to free trade.

He’s used government mechanisms to expropriate properties for his development projects.

He’s benefited from doing business in government closed markets and highly regulated industries (casinos).

He’s pro-choice and been married 3 times. Seriously, when’s the last time that you think he’s been in a church of any kind of his own volition?

He’s donated to Democrats in the past, including Hillary Clinton when she ran for Senator in New York. He’s explained that away as “the cost of doing business” i.e. he’s operated in those areas of our economy where greasing politicians for favours or influence is seen as normal. Doing so is tacit acceptance that government has a role in picking winners and losers in business, which conservatives should reject.

And that’s just off the top of our head. So the fact that he may win the Republican nomination is just further indication of conservatism’s ongoing fall from grace. This is not the man to arrest the fall. At best he is a Traditionalist in the old Tory vein, but when your big government proclivities don’t overlap with libertarians and result in a strong advocacy of free markets, then you’re a crony capitalist, just like every Russian or Arab oligarch that got obscenely rich by government largess and uses government to crush competition.

And when you cross a liberal with an anti-immigrant/nationalist you get… a fascist.

Next post we’ll discuss then why, in view of what Donald Trump is and represents, Kevin O’Leary is a bad idea for Canadian politics.

Like this:

The federal Liberals at least are supposed champions of “evidence based” policy making. It’s not a leap to suppose that the Ontario Liberals believe they are similar champions, especially when you consider how many Ontario Liberal staffers now work in Ottawa for the Trudeau government.

The segment on the Agenda is pretty dull stuff overall, but for entertainment you should fast forward to about the 9:00 mark when the Liberal apologist tries to dismiss the Ontario Auditor General’s indictment of our hydro costs in this province by arguing how much money we’re saving – real money, in her words – by reducing the “social costs” of carbon emissions, and, get this, by reducing the costs of extreme weather events in the province.

It’s like the Wynne ad where the Ontario Liberals claim to “be stopping climate change”. Sorry?

Ontario accounts for 0.5% roughly of global greenhouse gas emissions. Contrast that with China at 24% (and there are reports that they under-report their carbon emissions by more than a 100,000 mega tonnes a year). So even if we went full retard, to quote Tropic Thunder, and got to ZERO carbon emissions as a province (and we’re headed that way if the Wynne government stays in charge and successfully drives out all business) we’d still have almost ZERO impact on climate change.

So we are castrating ourselves for no real purpose, and it gets justified with junk science and bullshit assessments of the “social costs” of carbon. And for what? So Wynne and her co-horts can jet off to Paris and get accolades from bureaucrats in other countries about what mavericks in the fight against climate change we are, while the loss of manufacturing and high-energy industries leaves southwestern Ontario a wasteland.